Oregon

Oregon’s largest natural gas company said it was going green. It sells as much fossil fuel as before.

Published

2 years ago

September 13, 2024

Oregon’s largest natural gas company said it was going green. It sells as much fossil fuel as before.

Seven years ago, Oregon’s biggest natural gas company set out to convince lawmakers and residents that an abundant new source of green energy was out there, just waiting to be tapped.

Renewable natural gas is derived from decomposing organic waste at sites like landfills or dairy farms. It could, in theory, replace fossil natural gas in our pipelines with something far better for the environment.

The company, NW Natural, sent a bow-tied lobbyist to the state capital to talk up renewable natural gas, and it helped write a new law promoting development of the new fuel. The company worked with the Oregon Department of Energy to prepare a statewide inventory of potential resources. And, with more than $1 million in customer money, the company targeted those customers with ads, introducing a slogan that highlighted its commitment to lowering carbon emissions: “Less We Can.”

These and subsequent efforts became a template for NW Natural’s industry peers — and effectively tamped down a growing push by climate activists to phase out gas use in Oregon homes and electrify everything instead.

Seven years on, the utility has not delivered on its clean-energy sales pitch. NW Natural has more retail gas customers than ever. It supplies them little, if any, renewable natural gas. It sells them as much fossil natural gas in an average year as it did before. And it wages steady battles in the courts and in local city halls to keep the gas flowing.

Internal industry documents obtained by ProPublica, coupled with an analysis of regulatory filings and testimony before the state Legislature, reveal how NW Natural pursued an approach that perpetuated its core fossil fuel business while the company painted a picture of going green.

“The story they’re telling us is simply not possible,” said former state Rep. Phil Barnhart, a Democrat who voted for some of the company’s legislation when in office.

“What they’re trying to do,” Barnhart said, “is to prevent being put out of business.”

NW Natural, for its part, says that its renewables goals remain attainable and that it firmly believes in them. But “uncertain support from policy makers and regulators along with ongoing barriers demanded by certain climate advocates” have made the company’s path needlessly difficult, spokesperson David Roy wrote in an email. “It’s baffling how a relatively small but loud group of stakeholders have been in opposition to our many efforts to lower system emissions,” he continued. Roy defended the “Less We Can” campaign as “providing customers with valuable information.”

NW Natural operates in a state where residents and their Democratic leaders demand real action on climate change. Unlike many other public utilities, it does not sell electricity in addition to gas; if a home switches from gas ranges and furnaces to electric, the company likely loses that customer.

As it navigates the new climate economy, the utility has followed a course that other companies, especially energy companies, have taken in the face of public pressure: a loud embrace of environmental goals; then a complicated, often unproven solution; then a continuation of the status quo if and when that solution falls short. The company’s actions ensured that even as it has failed to hit its targets on renewables, and as the planet has kept heating up, it has faced few consequences.

An early ad from the “Less We Can” campaign suggested that Oregonians — and maybe NW Natural itself — could save the world with little in the way of personal sacrifice. It shows the sun emerging from a cloud. “Renewable Natural Gas is on the way home,” it reads. “Change for the better. Without changing a thing.”

Ads from NW Natural’s “Less We Can” campaign, from a 2022 filing with the Oregon Public Utility Commission.

Obtained by ProPublica

***

The story of NW Natural’s long fight against the movement to phase out gas emerges from a trove of more than 100 insider documents from the Northwest Gas Association, a trade group that includes the company and five of its regional peers. The utility watchdog Energy and Policy Institute obtained the documents — four years’ worth of meeting minutes, strategy papers and PowerPoint presentations from 2017 through 2020 — and recently shared them with ProPublica.

The documents capture a moment when the natural gas industry realized it was becoming a target. Barely a decade before, fossil natural gas had been hailed as a bridge to a low-carbon future. The Obama administration promoted it as a cleaner alternative to coal and diesel, an energy source to rely on until more wind and solar could come online. Until 2010, even the Sierra Club supported it.

But pipelines carrying natural gas leaked more than was first understood, releasing uncombusted methane, a greenhouse gas more than 28 times as harmful as carbon dioxide. And North America’s fracking boom was making fossil natural gas so plentiful and cheap that environmentalists increasingly worried the world would get stuck on this energy bridge forever. Going all-electric, they argued, was the way forward.

The Northwest Gas Association decided it had to confront what internal documents alternately called the “anti-fossil fuel chorus,” “zero fossil fuel paradigm,” “zero carbon threat” or, simply, an “existential challenge.”

Board members met to plan their response one June morning in 2017 at Washington state’s Skamania Lodge, where floor-to-ceiling windows frame the Cascade Mountains and Columbia River Gorge, then again for two days in September at another luxury lodge, Cedarbrook, set on 18 acres of gardens and wetlands outside Seattle.

The gas executives agreed that climate change needed to be addressed but that climate policies in the Northwest should not penalize natural gas utilities or their customers.

They adopted a new strategic plan to push a unified message: Natural gas can be compatible with a low-carbon Northwest economy, thanks in part to emerging concepts like renewable natural gas. (Today, the association and NW Natural say more specifically that policies favoring electric stoves and heat pumps won’t necessarily cut emissions because the region’s strained electrical system relies increasingly on gas-fired power plants.)

To sell the idea of continued gas use, the strategic plan said the industry should adopt a more “assertive advocacy style” that borrows insights from psychological research. People first make value judgments “via intuition and emotion,” the strategic plan noted, not facts. So the association would place “greater emphasis on the heart, in the public battle for the ‘hearts and minds.’”

NW Natural’s representative at the trade association, an executive named Kim Rush (Kim Heiting, at the time), gave her industry colleagues a look inside “Less We Can.” It was just the kind of play for the heart the strategic plan envisioned.

“It’s a theme line,” Rush’s slideshow, dated July 2017, explained. “A rallying cry. A movement. A coalition with customers. A celebration. A call to action. A clean energy stake-in-the-ground… in 3 words or less.”

NW Natural had already road-tested the new slogan across four focus groups, via a consumer survey with 864 respondents and through television-ad concepts shown to 100 customers and 100 noncustomers. It had readied a new website, www.lesswecan.com, which featured cows and green fields and a FAQ about renewable natural gas.

One of Rush’s slides contained the campaign’s takeaways. Among them: “NW Natural and natural gas have an important, long-term role to play in our energy future”; “NW Natural has a plan, a goal and a running start”; and “Renewable natural gas is an exciting part of that plan.”

The campaign went live in fall 2017. Residents of Portland and other Oregon cities saw “Less We Can” TV spots, “Less We Can” YouTube videos, “Less We Can” newsletters, “Less We Can” billboards and “Less We Can” water bottles.

“Can a natural gas company be serious when it says it wants us to use less gas?” one video asked before showing a scene of a couple chopping vegetables together in the kitchen. “Can we really raise our families and lower emissions? Can we heat our homes and fight climate change? Can we expand our economy and use less?”

“Yes,” a narrator answered, as the video cut to an image of free-range cows and hand-drawn arrows pointing to the words “renewable natural gas.”

Stills from a NW Natural "Less We Can" video ad. — Stills from a NW Natural “Less We Can” video ad.
*Screenshots by ProPublica*

***

At the time the “Less We Can” campaign was getting off the ground, not a single public utility in the United States regularly piped renewable natural gas to customers’ homes. The market for such organics-based gas was mainly clean fuels programs for vehicle fleets. Residential use would be pioneering, even experimental.

But if NW Natural’s ads had gotten ahead of reality, the company was already backing legislation that seemed to portend widespread use of the alternative fuel.

It started earlier in 2017 with a bill in the Oregon Legislature that put forward a seemingly straightforward proposition. Oregon would take stock of its every landfill, every dairy farm, every sewage plant and every conceivable pile of woody debris: sites that could emit methane as organic matter broke down. Why not study how much was out there? The bill, a precursor to similar bills in other states, including Washington, sailed through with little opposition.

The ensuing inventory was a rigorous, yearlong process led by the Oregon Department of Energy that produced a 110-page report to the Legislature in September 2018 — which NW Natural quickly turned into a valuable talking point.

The report’s authors found that Oregon’s “technical potential” for renewable natural gas was significant: nearly 50 billion cubic feet. “That’s equivalent to the total amount of natural gas used by all Oregon residential customers today,” read a NW Natural press release. The company would go on to use variations of this phrase on its website, in annual sustainability reports and in statements to lawmakers.

But “technical potential” represents the amount Oregon could produce if money was no obstacle. NW Natural said little about another, more problematic finding: Using currently available technologies and waste streams, the state could produce just 10 billion cubic feet of gas from organic sources.

Barnhart, the former state lawmaker, says the utility’s selective interpretation of the study not only overstated the size of the resource, it left out “the real denominator” by ignoring industrial and commercial gas use. Including those and transportation customers in the equation would put total gas demand in Oregon at three times the figure NW Natural cited; the state’s potential renewable natural gas resources, using current technology, could meet less than 7% of that demand.

“NW Natural has done a very, very good job of saying true things in a way that is grossly misleading,” Barnhart said.

Roy, the company spokesperson, said it was reasonable to call out Oregon’s full theoretical capacity to make the biogas, noting that all renewable energy sources have required innovation to bring them to market. As for focusing on residential use alone, NW Natural said highlighting a single sector was a useful way to “help people understand the magnitude of the resource.”

The company leaned on the state’s most optimistic numbers in early 2019 when it returned to lawmakers with a second, far more expansive bill that was the first of its kind in the country.

The new bill aimed to address another key barrier to NW Natural’s plans for renewable natural gas. Under existing state rules, utilities had to purchase gas for their customers at the lowest available price, and gas made from biomass could be 10 times more expensive than fossil natural gas. But the bill would allow NW Natural to pursue renewable natural gas and recoup the added cost from its customers. It would be able to spend up to 5% of its annual revenues, some $40 million or more, to secure a dedicated supply.

The legislation also set out ambitious but voluntary goals for NW Natural and other large gas utilities: to produce or acquire renewable natural gas equivalent to 5% of deliveries to retail customers by 2024, 10% by 2029 and 30% by 2050.

Renewable natural gas is a small fraction of NW Natural’s supply for retail customers

Sources: NW Natural 2023 Annual Renewable Natural Gas Compliance Report; Oregon Senate Bill 98 (2019); 2022 NW Natural Integrated Resource Plan.
*Lucas Waldron/ProPublica*

The company sent an executive named Anna Chittum to testify before an Oregon Senate committee, and she cited the inventory almost immediately. “They found about 50 billion cubic feet of potential in the state of Oregon,” she said.

Chittum emphasized that this would be a boon not only for the planet but for Oregon businesses.

“Renewable natural gas is a local resource, first and foremost,” she continued. “We believe that Oregon entities like wastewater treatment plants and landfills, some of the dairies in our region and other companies, as well as our natural gas customers, will directly benefit.”

The bill passed easily and with support from both parties just a day before a partisan meltdown tanked a more controversial piece of climate legislation, an effort to create a California-style carbon cap-and-trade system. The changes called for by cap-and-trade would have been mandatory, unlike those created by the renewable gas legislation. (The company now says it wanted binding targets for renewable gas but “other stakeholders,” whom it declined to name, opposed them.)

On social media, the company’s Kim Rush soon cheered the bill’s success, sharing a photo of Oregon Gov. Kate Brown at a September 2019 signing ceremony, flanked by fellow lawmakers, NW Natural CEO David Anderson and at least three other employees of the company.

“Proud of our state for leading the nation on renewable natural gas development!” Rush wrote. “A vital step in the path toward decarbonizing our pipeline network. #LessWeCan.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Kim Rush of NW Natural shared this photo of a signing ceremony for a landmark 2019 bill allowing her utility to be one of the first in the nation to acquire renewable natural gas for customers. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, center, posed with legislators and numerous NW Natural representatives. Anna Chittum, in pink, led the company’s renewables effort.
*Screenshot by ProPublica*

***

Despite the victory lap with Oregon’s chief executive, behind the scenes NW Natural and its allies were preparing to quash measures that activist groups and government officials said were needed to reduce the gas industry’s footprint.

For this mission the Northwest Gas Association initially hired Kelly Evans, a public affairs consultant who once ran the successful reelection campaign of Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire. Evans recommended creating a formal coalition with partners outside the gas industry to lobby for continued natural gas use. It would draw in restaurant associations, labor unions, appliance manufacturers, homebuilders and more.

The winner of a million-dollar contract to build just such a coalition and launch a pro-gas campaign across the Northwest was the communications firm Quinn Thomas. It had helped Washington business interests win fights against cap-and-trade and a carbon tax in that state in 2015 and 2016. Now the firm pledged to “defeat policies detrimental to the natural gas industry” once again.

“When the time comes to ‘turn on’ the coalition to combat a specific proposal,” Quinn Thomas wrote in its bid, “we have extensive experience training and deploying spokespeople for public hearings.”

Evans and Quinn Thomas did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.

Northwest cities including Bellingham, Washington, and Eugene, Oregon, were beginning to consider natural gas restrictions. Evans had outlined a messaging plan for such fights, one focused on affordability, reliability and resiliency, on solutions like renewable natural gas, and, most of all, on consumer choice: “There are policies being advanced to limit YOUR choice…” and “people want to take it away,” she wrote when describing the plan.

After activists in Eugene accused NW Natural of overstating Oregon’s potential for renewable natural gas, Rush prepared a letter in 2021 to the city manager repeating the consultant’s talking points — “affordability, reliability and choice” — almost verbatim.

Eugene’s City Council nevertheless passed a partial natural gas ban in early 2023. Three days later, a group formed to collect signatures to revoke the ban, its name another apparent echo of the talking points: “Eugene Residents for Energy Choice.” Belying its grassroots name, the group’s work was bankrolled by $1,014,300 in donations — all but $220 of them from NW Natural. (The council eventually revoked the ban on its own.)

Another fight loomed at the state level. With cap-and-trade dead in the Oregon Legislature, Brown had issued an executive order mandating statewide controls on greenhouse gas emissions. For much of 2020 and 2021, the state prepared new rules to put Brown’s order in action.

The Oregon Public Utility Commission, which determines which costs NW Natural can pass along to consumers, soon began to question whether renewable natural gas was the most economical way for the company to meet the new climate rules. What if money spent on renewable natural gas went instead to home weatherization or more efficient appliances? What if it wasn’t spent on natural gas at all?

NW Natural filed suit against regulations stemming from the governor’s executive order in early 2022, serving as the lead plaintiff. The company noted in a letter to its customers that it was committed to addressing climate change, citing its support for past “landmark” renewable natural gas legislation among other actions. It said its legal challenge to the state’s climate program came only “after exhausting all other options.”

NW Natural’s public messaging around renewable natural gas, meanwhile, remained upbeat. Starting in the summer of 2021, its events team visited at least two dozen street fairs and town festivals across Oregon with what it called the Cowthouse (“think cow + outhouse,” the utility explained): a fake toilet with cow legs sticking out below the door.

Those who approached the Cowthouse were challenged to a riddle: “What do a cow, a toilet and a banana peel have in common?” The answer, “RNG,” for renewable natural gas, was stamped on sugar cookies the company handed out.

***

As it pitched Oregonians on renewable natural gas, NW Natural had gone all out in emphasizing the vast amounts of rotting matter their state could use to produce it. In the end, the company opted not to use a bit of homegrown waste. It turned instead to other states, especially Nebraska.

Meat and poultry giant Tyson Foods kept two of its biggest beef slaughterhouses there, each week churning through tens of thousands of cows that, in turn, churned out hundreds of thousands of pounds of manure as they awaited their end at the facility.

Cattle pens at Tyson Fresh Meats in Dakota City, Nebraska.
*Google Maps*

Rotting manure lets off methane. Rotting carcasses let off methane. Rotting garbage lets off methane. The gas is so much worse for the climate than carbon dioxide, ounce for ounce, that capturing a farm or landfill’s uncontrolled methane and purifying it to pipeline quality could, under the right circumstances, offset the harm from emissions it creates when burned.

NW Natural has described renewable natural gas as “carbon neutral” in corporate reports and a “zero-carbon resource” in news releases. But in more recent filings with Oregon regulators, the company estimates that gas from its project in Dakota City, Nebraska, while cleaner than ordinary natural gas, still packs 25% of the climate impact. At the Tyson slaughterhouse in Lexington, Nebraska, it’s 40%.

In an interview, Chittum noted that there is no universal standard to measure how much a renewable natural gas project actually helps the climate. By the standards followed by some state programs, including in California, she said the Tyson projects could possibly be certified as carbon-zero, or even carbon-negative. But it’s expensive to hire someone to do a full accounting, and Oregon doesn’t require NW Natural to prove any benefit — so “we just haven’t spent … the third-party dollars to go calculate all of that,” she said.

Methane from the Tyson operations is captured and piped not to Oregon, but to customers mainly near the two plants. NW Natural counts it as a credit against the fossil natural gas its own customers burn.

For 2023, NW Natural reported renewable natural gas from the Tyson projects, some dairy digesters in Wisconsin, a sewage treatment plant in New York and a food-waste project in Utah.

“It doesn’t matter where the renewable molecule of RNG comes from if reducing emissions is the goal,” NW Natural’s Roy told ProPublica.

***

NW Natural has notched a series of wins in recent months.

For the fourth year in a row, it was named one of the best gas utilities in the West by the survey company J.D. Power. For the third year in a row, it was named one of the world’s most ethical companies by Ethisphere, a for-profit company that rates other companies’ ethics for a fee.

In late December, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NW Natural in overturning the state climate program that resulted from Brown’s executive order.

In May, NW Natural touted the results of a poll it had commissioned: It said 72% of Oregon voters opposed bans on natural gas in new homes and buildings, a 9-point increase since 2019. “Voters’ attention is more focused on what they believe are pressing concerns, such as homelessness,” a press release said. More than 75% of respondents supported efforts promoting renewable natural gas.

But the renewable gas business has not gone as billed.

The company’s data for 2023 showed that even as it harnesses the waste streams of one of the world’s biggest meatpackers — at an anticipated cost of $38 million, if two more planned Tyson projects come online — NW Natural is falling far short of the share of its supply it said would come from the alternative fuel.

In a document filed in August with the Public Utility Commission, the company said it had slowed its procurement and did not expect to hit the goal of 5% it had set for 2024. It blamed “policy and regulatory uncertainty,” particularly the commission’s skepticism of its renewable natural gas plans.

“Less We Can” is taking on a new meaning.

After years of fanfare about renewable natural gas, what’s its share of NW Natural’s gas supply today?

Less than 1%.

Source link

Related Topics:Featured Science & Environment | Natural Gas | Clean Energy | Fossil Fuels

Click to comment

Oregon

Oregon man shot at In-N-Out drive-thru drove family to safety with bullet lodged in head

Published

7 hours ago

May 15, 2026

Press Room

Oregon man shot at In-N-Out drive-thru drove family to safety with bullet lodged in head

Oregon police have arrested two suspects in connection with the shooting of a father who drove himself to a hospital after being struck in the head by a bullet after shots rang out while he was pulling out of In-N-Out drive-thru with his wife and two young sons.

Ethan Adrian Armenta-Lagunas, 20, and Gabriel “Alex” Javier, 18, both of Salem, were taken into custody Wednesday.

They face charges of first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon, criminal mischief, and recklessly endangering another person in connection with the Feb. 9 shooting of Marcio Garcia.

Multiple guns were allegedly found at Armenta-Lagunas’ apartment, the Keizer Police Department said. Javier was arrested later in the day.

Authorities are still searching for a third suspect, 22-year-old Anthony Taylor-Manriquez, who is considered armed and dangerous.

Garcia, 28, was in a car with his wife and two children, ages 2 and 7, when shots rang out near the burger chain.

The gunfire shattered the car windows and struck Garcia in the head; his wife and children were uninjured, police said.

“In the middle of chaos and fear, while he was injured and in pain, he somehow found the strength to drive us out of the scene to safety,” his wife wrote in an online fundraiser.

“He protected our family before thinking of himself. That is the kind of man and father he is.”

Images posted online showed the bullet that was removed from Garcia’s head during surgery in February, according to his wife.

She also noted that Garcia did not suffer major brain damage and is currently recovering at home.

“The doctors told us what we already believe — this is nothing short of a miracle,” she said. “Now he faces a long road of rest, healing, and recovery.”

Source link

Oregon

PeaceHealth says Oregon CEO Jim McGovern out, Heather Wall to continue as interim leader

Published

19 hours ago

May 14, 2026

Press Room

PeaceHealth says Oregon CEO Jim McGovern out, Heather Wall to continue as interim leader

PeaceHealth announced Thursday that Dr. Jim McGovern is no longer serving as chief executive for the organization’s Oregon region, effective immediately.

Following a period of administrative leave, we determined that a leadership change was in the best interest of the organization,” said Sarah Ness, PeaceHealth president and CEO.

Heather Wall will continue in her established interim leadership role to ensure continuity, stability and uninterrupted operations across the Oregon region while PeaceHealth recruits for the chief executive role in Oregon.

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

“Together, as we shape our future, PeaceHealth leaders are entrusted to consistently bring our Mission and Values to life by creating environments where caregivers and partners feel seen, heard, supported and inspired to do their best work,” Ness said. “We remain focused on delivering high-quality, compassionate care and supporting our caregivers as we move forward together.”

Source link

Oregon

Who’s running for a seat in the Oregon House of Representatives?

Published

1 day ago

May 14, 2026

Press Room

Who’s running for a seat in the Oregon House of Representatives?

In Oregon, state representatives serve two-year terms. Like state senators, state representatives represent a specific district based on population. Currently, Democrats hold a 37-23 majority in the state House. Over 100 candidates have filed for the 60 seats up for election. Of the 60 districts, approximately 20 are in the Portland Metropolitan Area (Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties).

State-level representatives address local and regional issues such as education policy, health care, transportation, public safety and taxes. Because state representatives serve smaller districts than state senators, their policymaking tends to be more localized and focused on their respective geographic regions.

Each candidate received a questionnaire containing three questions. Candidates were limited to 150 words per answer. Candidates submitted written responses via email, and may be edited for clarity. Read more about Street Roots elections coverage here.

District 27 Democratic Primary

Currently, Rep. Ken Helm (D) represents District 27, which includes Beaverton, Cedar Hills and nearby communities. No Republicans have filed campaigns for District 27, which is a historically blue district.

Name: Ashley Hartmeier-Prigg

City: Beaverton, OR

Current occupation: Director of product management at Crate & Barrel

Prior political office held: Beaverton City Councilor (2021-present), Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District director (2019-2021)

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

Subsidizing private development to address affordable housing has been an effective tool in helping meet our affordable housing needs, but I don’t think it’s the only solution we should consider. In Beaverton, we have built over 600 affordable units using Metro Affordable Housing bond dollars, and that is a huge accomplishment; however, it doesn’t come close to meeting the need. I think public housing is a really interesting option, and has worked very well in other countries. I believe we should find innovative and creative ways to build more housing to ensure people at all income levels have safe and affordable housing.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push your colleagues to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Eviction prevention is critical to ensuring families remain housed and avoid the trauma of the shelter system. While emergency shelters are necessary, investing in prevention is a guaranteed strategy to reduce their demand. However, “Housing First” alone is insufficient; we must also restore funding for supportive services to provide the resources necessary for individuals to thrive long-term.

I am committed to pushing my colleagues to prioritize and restore funding for these vital programs. My plan includes making prevention a budget priority, advancing reinvestment legislation, and collaborating with community partners to ensure effective fund distribution. If we are serious about our Democratic values, we must invest in preventing homelessness at its source, rather than simply responding after our neighbors have already lost their homes.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

I strongly oppose any effort to repeal the “objectively reasonable” standard and further criminalize homelessness. We need to fully stop treating homelessness as a crime. Penalizing people for sleeping outside or having nowhere else to go does nothing to solve the crisis and pushes people further into instability, making it hard for folks to access housing and services. I think we have failed as a society that so many folks have to sleep outside. We should be focusing on real solutions: increasing affordable housing, expanding supportive services, and investing in eviction prevention so fewer people end up homeless in the first place. And if someone finds themselves homeless, there needs to be resources to help them get back to stable housing.

Name: Tammy Carpenter

City: Beaverton, OR

Current occupation: Retired. Former anesthesiologist and engineer.

Prior political office held: Beaverton School Board Director (2023-present)

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

The public-private partnership paradigm that has long been at the center of our approach to housing is not working. We are not getting enough affordable, family housing from the for-profit system. I believe the government needs to invest in social housing. We should be building dense, transit-accessible housing that is permanently affordable and owned cooperatively by the tenants or by the government. We should follow the lead of the City of Portland, and begin the process of social housing in Beaverton. Government dollars should be spent on publicly owned, high-quality, permanently affordable, environmentally and socially sustainable housing that is insulated from speculation and private equity that drives up the cost of housing in the private market.

Preventing homelessness is the most effective way to reduce homelessness. I will work with my colleagues in Salem to help working families by restoring programs that prevent evictions, like emergency rent assistance and relocation funding. More importantly, I will introduce a renters’ bill of rights that will protect tenants from profit-driven landlords who charge excessive fees, unfairly increase rents, or don’t maintain habitability standards. While we are working to prevent evictions, we must also be working to get folks who have been experiencing long-term homelessness into permanent housing and supportive services to finally end the cycle of homelessness in our state.

It is simply inhumane that we have criminalized poverty. This is not a new phenomenon, but the public visibility of the current crisis is leading many elected leaders to attempt to sweep the problem under the rug rather than fundamentally change our approach to housing. Our current affordability crisis makes it almost impossible for folks to even get back on their feet without some kind of help. I believe that we must repeal this law and make significant investments in directly helping folks experiencing homelessness through each step of the rehousing process.

District 38 Democratic Primary

District 38 includes South Waterfront, Lake Oswego and portions of Southwest Portland. Incumbent Rep. Daniel Nguyen, currently serving his second term, is up against John Wasielewski, who has no prior political experience.

Name: Daniel Loc Nguyen

City: Lake Oswego

Current occupation: Representative serving House District 38 and Founder of Bambuza Hospitality Group

Prior political office held: Lake Oswego city council (2019 – 2022)

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

“Yes, and” is the answer.

Every Oregonian deserves a safe, affordable place to live, regardless of income and government should help support and create the conditions to make that happen.

My “yes” is because we need to build more housing and for that, private developers are best positioned. That’s why I supported one of the largest-ever investments in housing in Oregon’s history, which prioritized middle-income, temporary housing, and first-time home ownership.

And we need to focus on and ensure housing production in the 0-80 MFI range. We have learned the hard way in Portland that building, managing, and maintaining public housing is difficult. Private developers partnered with funding and strong long-term agreements with local governments and communities may be our best path.

Funding eviction prevention is the most humane and cost-effective tool we have to prevent homelessness. It was very disappointing to see a reduction. Our next economic forecast comes out May 20th and I’ll be watching to see if there is an opportunity to commit additional dollars to eviction prevention. And if it’s a no in May, I’m going to try again in September.

Likewise, supportive housing is a proven pathway out of homelessness, reduces reliance on emergency systems–pairing housing with access to mental health care, addiction treatment or case management has significant public health benefits as well.

I appreciate Street Roots’ consistent coverage of the shortcomings of our funding levels and system failures. Keep the pressure on us to do better.

Oregon’s “objectively reasonable” standard is a vital safeguard—it prevents punishing people for having nowhere to go. As a former city councilor, I understand the pressure local governments face. But moving people without real alternatives like shelter or housing is cruel, counterproductive and costly.

The fight to overturn this common-sense standard is a distraction that keeps us from holding the federal government accountable for its inaction on the housing crisis. We haven’t seen homelessness at this scale since the Great Depression, when Roosevelt responded with large-scale federal housing efforts. Oregon and the Portland metro regional taxpayers have invested millions, but we need federal leadership to match the scale of this crisis and deliver real, lasting solutions.

Name: John Wasielewski

City: Lake Oswego

Current occupation: Middle school teacher at Lake Oswego Middle School, cross-country and track coach

Prior political office held: None

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

Subsidizing private development is one tool available to address housing affordability and market shortages, but it cannot be the only one. Just as we wouldn’t build an entire house with a

single tool, we must utilize a diverse set of strategies to effectively solve the housing crisis. We need to explore innovative alternatives to meet our community’s needs, as market-rate housing remains inaccessible to many, especially those in the greatest need. It is essential that we consider and experiment with options like social housing and rental assistance to provide opportunities for mitigating this crisis in our city.

As a middle school student support specialist, I work within a data-informed pipeline designed to deliver targeted interventions. This system only succeeds when every stage is adequately resourced. Divesting from one area to consolidate funding into a single solution, like shelters, would, at best, create an expensive holding cell with no clear off-ramps for those seeking to exit homelessness. We cannot prioritize one fix over another; eviction prevention and supportive housing are not secondary. They are co-equal components of an effective, integrated strategy. Just as in education, a gap in any part of the system causes the entire pipeline to fail. We must commit to a comprehensive approach that includes eviction protection and supportive housing funding. (Suggested: I would also join my colleagues in passing a moratorium on the ban of rent control measures to keep rents from being raised so exorbitantly.)

I do not support repealing this law; the standard for moving individuals should remain “objectively reasonable.” However, I do support providing greater statutory clarification on what “objectively reasonable” means so that the courts are not the sole determinants of that definition. Homelessness is not an individual economic choice; it is a systemic economic failure. While criminalizing homelessness might make it easier for our current system to “address” the issue by hiding it, it does not solve the underlying problem. Criminalization merely hides homelessness. To truly solve it, we must ensure there are dedicated resources effectively coordinated within a holistic pipeline that addresses the crisis at its roots

District 40 Democratic Primary

District 40 includes Gladstone, Oregon City, Johnson City, Jennings Lodge, Oatfield and parts of unincorporated north Clackamas County. Democratic incumbent Rep. Annessa Hartman announced in September that she will not seek reelection. Neither of the Republican candidates, Adam Baker and Sue Leslie, provided answers.

Name: Charles Gallia

City: Oregon City

Current occupation: Retired

Prior political office held: None.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

Subsidizing private development can be part of the solution, but it cannot be the backbone of our housing strategy. In high-cost markets like ours, subsidies alone often produce too few truly affordable units, too slowly, and at too high a per-unit cost. We need a more balanced approach: significantly expand non-market housing (public, nonprofit, and community land trusts), streamline approvals for deeply affordable projects, and align subsidies with long-term affordability requirements. I also support using public land more aggressively and tying incentives to outcomes—units affordable to people at the lowest incomes. It’s time we thought of smaller cottages that become owned and create intergenerational wealth and community.

Yes—I would push to restore and stabilize funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing. The evidence is clear: it is far less expensive—and far more humane—to keep people housed than to rehouse them after displacement. It should also not just shift the burden onto people renting out homes to absorb the expense. Overreliance on shelters is costly and doesn’t solve homelessness over time. A smart approach prioritizes upstream interventions: rental assistance and services that stabilize people with complex needs. Shelters have a role, especially in emergencies, but they can not displace proven strategies that prevent homelessness in the first place. 1:1 support. We need a housing continuum that works, and right now we are underinvesting in the parts that deliver the best outcomes.

I would oppose repealing the “objectively reasonable” standard. It exists to ensure that local policies balance community concerns with basic constitutional protections and human dignity. Criminalizing homelessness without adequate shelter or housing options is not only ineffective—it exposes cities to legal risk and pushes people further from stability. We should focus on solutions that reduce homelessness, not policies that simply move it around or make it less visible. That means expanding access to shelter and housing, investing in behavioral health services, and supporting local governments with clear, lawful frameworks. Accountability matters, but it must be paired with realistic options for people to comply. Otherwise, we are legislating failure rather than solving the problem.

It should be very clear what that means too.

Name: Michael Sugar

City: Oregon City

Current occupation: High school social studies teacher.

Prior political office held: None

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

We should continue to subsidize private development, but we can go further by supporting Main Street Grants that don’t just help restore historic building facades, but also subsidize renovation of aged or historic office space to expand housing. Over the long term, we can also invest in social housing similar to the Austrian model that actually helps families stabilize permanently in mixed-income communities instead of temporarily and precariously in poverty-dense areas as current affordable housing models sometimes do.

All of these are important: eviction prevention, supportive housing and shelters. I would push my colleagues to find balance there, and also to improve on the supportive housing models: frequently, these models are so time-limited or income restricted that they push people out right as they are starting to stabilize, reigniting housing instability for them. We need supportive housing that allows people to have stability over a long period of time, which can also create income diversity within these areas.

I do not support criminalizing homelessness. I do support programs that address both the housing crisis and the public health crisis inherent to homelessness. That’s everything from Oxford houses and non-profits like Father’s Heart & Love One to helping Clackamas County & regional cities start a crisis response program like Lane County’s Cahoots. In the end, we should protect and support the most vulnerable members of our communities (the unhoused) and compassionately ensure street camping becomes a relic of the past by getting people the support, services, and housing options they need.

District 41 Democratic Primary

Incumbent Rep. Mark Gamba (D) is running for reelection in House District 41, which represents Milwaukie, Oak Grove, Northern Clackamas County, and the Sellwood, Eastmoreland and Woodstock neighborhoods.

Name: Rep. Mark Gamba

City: Milwaukie

Current occupation: Representative serving Oregon’s 41st district.

Prior political office held: Milwaukie City Councilor, Mayor of Milwaukie, State Representative

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

No, I don’t think that “the market” can solve all of our problems. If it could, we wouldn’t have a problem in the first place. I have been running a workgroup for almost a year now to try and stand up a social housing program that would mass produce 10,000 – 1,000 square foot units a year. We are aiming at a sale price of $250,000 each. This would give a couple, both making close to minimum wage, the opportunity for home ownership which would stabilize them. Currently most people are stuck in a skyrocketing rental market which their pay can’t keep up with.

Yes, but our real problem is our very broken revenue system, and the cuts coming from the federal government all of which affect the same population. It is far cheaper to keep folks housed, but as I said above, rents increase faster than anyone’s paycheck, leading to a downward spiral with only one outcome. It’s financially unsustainable currently for the state to keep up with that and it’s only going to get worse. For someone to be able to afford the average one-bedroom apartment in the Portland metro region, they need to be making around $34/hour. Huge companies, making astronomic profits, are paying half of that. As a state we can’t continue to subsidize their profits by keeping their employees housed with our limited tax dollars.

I would oppose it. Criminalizing poverty is not going to solve anything for the houseless, just hide it from the people it makes uncomfortable. Maybe if they become uncomfortable enough they will be willing to push elected leaders to actually solve it with things like a “housable minimum wage,” better behavioral health care, housing first solutions etc.

Name: Priyesh Krishnan

City: Portland

Current occupation: Principal data scientist

Prior political office held: None

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

I don’t think that subsidizing private developers is the best way to address affordability. At best it subsidizes the first sale cost. At worst, it inflates developer margins. I favor also trying models like the Home Trust or Community Land Trust models that allow for organizations to sustain affordability through generations.

Recent legislation, like HB 4082, is a good case in point. It must be new housing, to expand the urban growth boundary, for seniors only, and built with defined amenities together in a community. The developers are happy with that subsidy. We need to build systems that build on themselves, not just try to find a short-term band-aid. It is not just a supply and demand problem. People deserve options.

When you try to protect the most vulnerable, you must protect those that are in danger of becoming vulnerable as well. In healthcare, you don’t wait for a heart blockage to give cholesterol medicine. Eviction protection, safety housing and grants are all ways to help people smooth out the bumps in their life.

For eviction protection specifically, there is an imbalance between renters and landlords. This only brings balance, without favoring one side or another. While cities have their own laws, the benefit of state-mandated baselines is to keep all Oregonians on an even playing field.

Time has shown that there is not a law in the land that fixes the core issues leading to the multiple causes of houselessness. And without that multilayered approach to attempting the core fix, we would be selling ourselves short by allowing for the symptom to be criminalized.

In the story of houselessness, we are facing the same ideas of human dignity and opportunity that is being faced elsewhere in our state. Yes, it is harder to work through all the layers of the issue. But that is the right path for our state. Again, cities have some opportunities here, but the need for a state approach (at baseline) is one that Oregonians deserve.

District 43 Democratic Primary

District 43, which includes North and Northeast Portland, is currently held by incumbent Rep. Tawna Sanchez (D), who is running for reelection. Rep. Sanchez chose not to respond to Street Roots’ candidate questionnaire because she said she could not adequately address the questions with a limited word count.

Name: Cye Sterling

City: Portland

Current occupation: Self-published author, volunteer with 7 Cups and active with Indivisible Oregon

Prior political office held: None

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

Having lived in public housing, I know firsthand how systems impact families. Oregon’s hybrid model is cost-effective, but for real stability and better quality of life, we should invest more in state-owned housing. This would cut through bureaucracy that slows families from getting into homes — a problem too many Oregonians face today.

I will absolutely push to restore funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing. It’s far more cost-effective and humane to help families stay in their homes than to start from scratch. Supportive housing provides long-term stability, essential services, and safety, while shelters are temporary and cannot replace a home. Everyone deserves a foundation to build their life, and without housing, that’s impossible.

I strongly oppose any effort to repeal this law. Criminalizing homelessness is cruel and comes from ignorance about the struggles people face. Housing is a basic need, and punishing someone for losing theirs is ineffective and unjust. At the same time, I recognize the frustrations of neighbors who deal with property damage, trash, or safety concerns. Our approach must balance compassion for those experiencing homelessness with respect for the public. The state should work with cities to implement policies that protect both residents and those without homes, ensuring safety, stability, and dignity.

Shared responsibility and thoughtful policy — not criminalization — are the only solutions that truly work.

This article appears in May 13, 2026.

Source link